George Jonas is upset that Fareed Zakaria is shilling for the leftist nutters of the Obama administration. Money graf:
"Zakaria and the rest of the avant-garde don't come right out and say that nukes for Ahmadinejad and cohorts are bagatelle. It's hard to argue that leaving nuclear technology lying around Holocaust-denying nutcases isn't rather similar to leaving nitroglycerin lying around the monkey house, so they don't argue it. What they do say is that Israel, having developed its own nuclear weapon, should understand the feelings of nations that haven't yet done so."
I would only add that sophisticates like Zakaria don't argue it. But garden variety leftists do argue it, all the time. They claim that Ahmedinijad is really a moderate and neocons are making up bad stuff about him. It was all mistranslated. Iran has a perfect right to the bomb and you are a racist hypocrite if you deny it. (h/t Israel Matsav blog)
A tale of two bombs
George Jonas, National Post
Published: Wednesday, August 19, 2009
In a weekend conversation with Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, CNN program host Fareed Zakaria demonstrated the leading edge of current political thinking. He pressed Oren to admit that Israel is terribly upset about Iran developing nuclear technology. Having secured the ambassador's agreement that Israel wasn't ecstatic about it, Zakaria demanded to know why.
I watched Zakaria with fascination. So, it seemed to me, did Israel's ambassador. It was a kind of "if I weren't seeing it, I wouldn't believe it" moment. Here was an obviously high-IQ, well-informed, up-to-date, state-of-the-art political pundit, wanting to know why Israel was upset about Iran trying to put itself within walking distance of nuclear weapons.
The message Zakaria conveyed was: See what President Obama is up against? The problem isn't Iran developing nuclear technology; the problem is Israel being unable to tolerate it. What's causing instability in the Middle East is a paranoid Jewish state's inability to cope with Iran getting closer to having what Israel has had for a long time: the Bomb.
Zakaria didn't actually say, "Well, what's wrong with Iran having the bomb?" He only conveyed it with his demean-our. America isn't worried by Iran's nuclear adventure; Israel is. Why should anyone be concerned about Iran developing the means to make a weapon? Several countries have actually "weaponized" nuclear energy: Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the U. S. The world is still here. Must we measure Iran with a different yardstick just because the Israelis are having kittens?
Why all this concern about proliferation anyway? Maybe it would be nicer if only the U. S. had the Bomb, but Iran having it is only a big deal for war-mongering neo-cons who are forever trying to drag America into some conflict in the Middle East. For nuanced and sophisticated Obamericans, it's nothing to get excited about.
This is the current message of the White House and its supporting punditry. It is the cutting edge. If nuclear proliferation is too hard or ideologically uncomfortable to prevent, just say it's no problem. Yes, so old Ahmadinejad is going to have some nukes. Big deal. Kim Jong-il already has them.
In politics-as-therapy whatever you can't help becomes your achievement. Can't stop wetting the bed? Just be proud of it. Remember, it's only a problem if it bothers you. When you fall flat on your face, take a leaf out of the book of Scipio Africanus. "Land of Africa, I hold you fast," the Roman general declared as he lay sprawling after a stumble. It may not be new but it works.
Zakaria and the rest of the avant-garde don't come right out and say that nukes for Ahmadinejad and cohorts are bagatelle. It's hard to argue that leaving nuclear technology lying around Holocaust-denying nutcases isn't rather similar to leaving nitroglycerin lying around the monkey house, so they don't argue it. What they do say is that Israel, having developed its own nuclear weapon, should understand the feelings of nations that haven't yet done so.
Equating the sensitivities of Israel, a country threatened with annihilation, with the sensitivities of the country that's doing the threatening is a new low in two-cent sophistry. It isn't Israel that's offended by Iran's very existence; it's the other way around. The Jewish State has no hostile designs on the Islamic Republic; it's the Islamic Republic that has hostile designs on the Jewish State. Israel's nuclear technology reduces the risk of war; Iran's nuclear technology increases it. The bomb in Israel's hand fosters peace in the region; the bomb in Iran's hand threatens war.
This goes way beyond the Middle East conflict. Some suggest that Barack Obama is just another Hugo Chavez. Be that as it may, America isn't just another Venezuela. America is the City upon the Hill -- or used to be. When Obama promised change, no one asked "what from?" or "what to?" Perhaps they should have. His change is distancing the United States from previous ideals, policies, principles and allies.
The world changed when the Soviet empire collapsed in 1989, bringing Eastern Europe and parts of Central Asia closer to the ideals of the free world. Twenty years later it changed again when Obama assumed the presidency of the United States. If it's not as profound as the change of 1989, it's certainly not as benevolent either.
The countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia -- nations such as Hungary, Georgia, and even Russia -- have more liberty and less government today than they had in 1989. By choosing Obama in 2009, Americans have embarked on a course that's leading them to more government and less liberty. Free enterprise and individual freedom haven't been extinguished in the United States, but the country is moving away from them. It's the former lands of Oriental despotism and applied Marxism that are inching, at least in fits and starts, towards principles and policies America is gradually discarding. Will the Statue of Liberty set sail from New York Harbour for Eastern Europe? When the world is out of joint, anything is possible.
nationalpost.com |
